Hannes Reinecke wrote:
Mike Christie wrote:
Hannes Reinecke wrote:
diff --git a/drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_fc.c
b/drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_fc.c
index 573ce21..6f39bf4 100644
--- a/drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_fc.c
+++ b/drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_fc.c
@@ -475,7 +475,8 @@ MODULE_PARM_DESC(dev_loss_tmo,
"Maximum number of seconds that the FC transport should"
" insulate the loss of a remote port. Once this value is"
" exceeded, the scsi target is removed. Value should be"
- " between 1 and SCSI_DEVICE_BLOCK_MAX_TIMEOUT.");
+ " between 1 and SCSI_DEVICE_BLOCK_MAX_TIMEOUT if"
+ " fast_io_fail_tmo is not set.");
What was the largest timeout value you tried? I think I am hitting a bug
with iscsi where if you pass queue_delayed_work a large enough value it
will overflow and instead of getting 100 minutes you get 1.
Well, 0x7fffffff works, 0xffffffff is rejected with -EINVAL.
And so should every other value with the top bit set.
If someone did 0x7fffffff, then we do 0x7fffffff * HZ in
fc_queue_devloss_work(shost, &rport->dev_loss_work, timeout * HZ);
on a 32bit box, it won't overflow to the value the user wanted will it?
I think it will not happen normally, but users will try it like they
have with iscsi and they will end up not knowing how to set it really high.
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
